Goodway & Anor v Zurich Insurance Company

Goodway & Anor v Zurich Insurance Company

The application for permission to appeal was refused because the judge's findings of fact and legal reasoning were not vitiated by alleged inaccuracies or unfairness, the misrepresentation claims lacked evidentiary support, and the costs order was within the judge's discretion.

Parties
Applicant/claimant: Richard Charles Goodway; Applicant/claimant: Carabos Ltd; Respondent/defendant: Zurich Insurance Company
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 October 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal and Extension of Time
Outcome
application refused
Legal Topics
Settlement Agreements, Misrepresentation, Costs Orders, Enforcement of Tomlin Orders
Contract Law Civil Procedure Insurance Law Settlement Agreements Misrepresentation Costs Orders Enforcement of Tomlin Orders

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Richard Charles Goodway

Applicant/claimant

Carabos Ltd

Applicant/claimant

Zurich Insurance Company

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal and Extension of Time

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether permission to appeal should be granted
  2. 2 Whether the Tomlin Order should be set aside for misrepresentation
  3. 3 Whether Zurich breached the Tomlin Order

Ratio Decidendi

The application for permission to appeal was refused because the judge's findings of fact and legal reasoning were not vitiated by alleged inaccuracies or unfairness, the misrepresentation claims lacked evidentiary support, and the costs order was within the judge's discretion.

Court Disposition

application refused

Orders

  • Permission to appeal is refused.
  • Extension of time is refused.